You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum. This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.

As a rookie kicker last season, the Ravens' Justin Tucker went 30-for-33 on field goals and 42-for-42 on extra points in the regular season, then went 4-for-4 on field goals and 16-for-16 on extra points in the playoffs. Tucker says he remembers exactly what he did wrong on the three kicks he missed, and he said he thinks he’s a better player now than he was when he arrived in Baltimore as an undrafted rookie last year.

Tucker: “It’s not unrealistic to say that I can have a perfect regular season kicking field goals and extra points. It’s just a matter of, no pun intended, putting in the leg work right now.”

Honestly, hopefully Walsh "regresses" its awesome that he was 10 for 10 beyond 50, but obviously he had so many chance because stalled around that spot too many times lol._________________XBL/PSN: Chainedsniper

I expect him to regress, honestly, there isnt much he can do to improve over last year. he was near flawless. Regression isnt the end of the world, assuming he is playing well, considering the bar he set for himself in his rookie year. Regression may not be the best word, i think it has a negative connotation, i still expect him to be a good to great kicker in 2013._________________

He might not have as good a season statistically (due to what should be a better offense this year), but as long as there is no clear sign of regression, then Blair has nothing to worry about._________________

I guess it depends on what you mean by "better". It's unfair to say he's regressed from his rookie year if he's only say, 6/6 on 50 yard attempts. A lot of it has to do with how our offense moves the ball, I don't expect him to get as many opportunities for 50 yarders this year.

He can still be just as good or better than he was last year even if his stat sheet isn't as pretty.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "better". It's unfair to say he's regressed from his rookie year if he's only say, 6/6 on 50 yard attempts. A lot of it has to do with how our offense moves the ball, I don't expect him to get as many opportunities for 50 yarders this year.

He can still be just as good or better than he was last year even if his stat sheet isn't as pretty.

I pretty much agree. Statistically, he more then likely will have a decline. He has too, Walsh had a historically great year. But that doesnt mean his skills regressed per se, but it would appear that way in terms of production.

Its like saying Adrian Peterson regressed if he runs for 1500 yards in 2013. while it may be true from a statistical point, he obviously is very unlikely to reach 2000 yards again in 2013._________________

I expect him to regress, honestly, there isnt much he can do to improve over last year. he was near flawless. Regression isnt the end of the world, assuming he is playing well, considering the bar he set for himself in his rookie year. Regression may not be the best word, i think it has a negative connotation, i still expect him to be a good to great kicker in 2013.

Regression is the right word -- statistical regression toward the mean. Assuming he's not going to bat 1.000 lifetime on 50+ yard FGs, Walsh is eventually going to have to miss one, which will put him closer to his "mean" (true level of performance).

Regression does have bad psychological connotations, like a kid sucking his thumb after an owie, but that's not (hopefully) the way in which he's going to regress.

Quote:

It's unfair to say he's regressed from his rookie year if he's only say, 6/6 on 50 yard attempts. A lot of it has to do with how our offense moves the ball, I don't expect him to get as many opportunities for 50 yarders this year.

I've seen this idea a few times, that he kicked so many FGs because our offense wasn't moving the ball. That's not how the stats work. 50-59 yard FG attempts are a function not only of where drives stop (between the opponent's 33 and 42), but of the kicker's ability to kick accurately enough at that distance in those conditions for the coach to be willing to send him out to try. A kicker with a big leg in a dome is going to get a chance from 56 yards, while one who's accurate but not long (like Longwell was in later years) who's kicking outdoors in bad weather will sit on the bench to watch a punt from the same field position.

Walsh went 10/10 outside 50 yards last year. 10 drives stalling between the opponent's 33 and 42 doesn't seem like much, only one every second game. Greg Zuerlein in St Louis (dome team, kicker with a big leg) had 13 attempts from that range, made 7. Four other kickers had 9 attempts, mostly guys with big legs: Janikowski (Oak), Barth (TB), Graham (Hou), Crosby (GB). You wouldn't think the Packers offense is prone to stalling, just that they'd opt for a FG attempt instead of a punt from that field position (bad choice, Crosby was 2/9). Many kickers had 2 or fewer attempts from that distance, probably because they don't have the leg for it (Robbie Gould in Chi).

In terms of total FG attempts from all distances, Walsh tied for 3rd most with 38, same as Bryant (Atl), and behind Akers (SF) with 42. Again, you wouldn't think of the Niners or Falcons as having inefficient offenses.

The Vikings didn't score a lot of TDs last year, but they weren't inefficient in the red zone: 18th in red zone TD scoring percentage with 51%, just behind SF, Sea and Cinci (Packers were 1st).

Meanwhile their defense (a bigger problem last year than Ponder's performance) gave up TDs on 61% of opponent drives into the red zone, 29th in the league (ahead of only Tenn, Buffalo, SD).

Randomish question. Do you guys think Kickers are just told to kick it as hard as they can in Kickoffs or do they want to try to hit the very end in hopes of a stupid KR who gets tackled before the 20?_________________XBL/PSN: Chainedsniper